A few years ago Eddie Mackechnie was your averagely ambitious Glasgow lawyer, Then Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi handed himself in for questioning over the lockerbie bombing. Since then both of their lives have changed immensely. Steven Raeburn meets mackechnie and asks why he took on such a dangerous client.

We know so much about the events of 21 December 1988. They have become a collective memory, from the deadly to the trivial. We know a Boeing 747 was blown out of the sky and descended to earth from 31,000 feet – almost five miles up. What isn’t generally known is that the plane was, coincidentally, one of the longest serving of the marque still flying: one of the safest planes in the air.
We know that the largest section of the plane punched a hole in the earth in Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie, an impact that measured 1.6 on the Richter scale. This took place as the opening credits of ‘This is Your Life’ were rolling. And 270 people died. Had the plane been eight minutes longer into its track towards New York, the detonation would have taken place above Glasgow.
After 11 years of protracted international diplomacy, legal wrangling and negotiating, and an eight-month trial, unique in its conception and execution, one man was imprisoned following the issue of a Guilty verdict. Today, he occupies a room in the east end of Glasgow as a guest of the Crown in a corner of the world known as Bar-L. We know his name is Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. Libyan. Found guilty. Held Guilty on appeal. But the game is not over. The case is currently before the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which is considering whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred. And Mr Megrahi has a lawyer. Meet Eddie Mackechnie.
His offices occupy the basement of a converted Georgian town house in the centre of Glasgow. They are spacious, warm and welcoming. Cigarette smoke hangs in the air; photos are evidence of his internationally known clients. Leather seats, panelled walls. You could be inside a Vettriano.
Eddie has been attached to the Lockerbie case since the commencement of trial proceedings in 1999, and the case occupies 90 per cent of his workload to this day. He was, once upon a time, not too different from your averagely ambitious, moderately successful Scots lawyer.
For five years, he has been working on what can fairly be argued as the most significant criminal case in Scots law history. Few cases in any country have had such potentially wide-ranging geopolitical consequences. Given that Libya has been politically excommunicated since 1986 (a state of affairs which only began to be resolved in December 2003) with a sanctions regime that, it has been argued, cost Libya $33 billion and resulted in 10,000 deaths, and considering the ongoing tension surrounding Israeli/Palestine relations, the conduct and execution of the trial, together with its outcome, continue to have relevance in world politics today.
The events of September 2001, and those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba thereafter, all have threads which lead back to that night, and earlier. It’s hardly your average stabbing in Castlemilk. So how did he end up with this on his plate?
Eddie Mackechnie’s career progression charts a typical path, beginning in 1974 as a court solicitor with Bishop & Co, the senior partner of which organisation was one Professor John M. Halliday, the much respected writer of many of the conveyancing world’s modern commandments.
But shepherding the fledgling court department fell within Mackechnie’s remit. “My brief was essentially to build up a litigation practice within Bishop & Co, which I think I was successful with. We obviously managed to build up the practice to the extent that I had assistants, and I have to say I had a very interesting and a very comfortable job, as I was still comparatively young, heading up a fairly significant unit within Bishop & Co.”
Later, joining what is now McGrigors, Mackechnie moved away from court work, becoming a specialist in arbitration and commercial construction, until his career took a sudden and extreme leap right out of the box.
“A lot of people will assume that it was rather odd that I became involved in a very substantial criminal case in 1999 but in actual fact I had, perhaps 20 years earlier, done a lot of criminal legal aid work and had cut my teeth on that – I had even worked on one previous terrorist trial with alleged members of the Ulster Volunteer Force.”
And, indeed, this case is somewhat famous, being one of only a few terrorism cases ever to be tried in Scottish jurisdiction. And to this day only one prior trial has ever resulted in a conviction for terrorist offences. Although in this case Eddie is pleased to report that his clients were acquitted.
Stepping up to take the kick on behalf of the accused in the Lockerbie case was the result of a combination of timing, a leap of faith, and liberal dose of bare-faced brass, all following on directly from MacKechnie’s experiences in arbitration. “While being absent from an office for very extensive periods conducting an arbitration hearing in Edinburgh or Aberdeen, what would tend to happen when coming back to the office, often after several weeks or even months, was that inevitably some of the client connection had gone elsewhere within the firm and, accordingly, one did not have instantly a huge amount of work in progress. That sometimes created a pressure of its own.”
Finding himself with a degree of unexpected professional breathing space after a particularly lengthy arbitration hearing in Edinburgh, the opportunity to take part in this legal Brigadoon presented itself.
“It came to pass following an informal chat with one of my partners, who led me to understand that ‘the Libyans’ might be looking to appoint a solicitor to act for one of the two accused, who were about to appear in Scotland for trial. Like most people in Scotland, I knew that the solicitor acting for both of the Libyans was Alistair Duff. I had never met Alistair Duff in my life. I admit it was perhaps something of a long shot, but the idea of taking on the responsibility of acting on behalf of one of the Libyans accused in a very complex international case was a huge attraction for me and, frankly, it was a matter of personal fascination and a challenge. It seemed to me to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I’ve always believed that if you don’t attempt to go after something you are never going to get to where you want to be.”
And with his determined hat on, it was simply a question of the right sort of words in the right sort of ear. “I admit with some embarrassment that it was a naked approach made by me to Mr Duff. I didn’t know him at all. I introduced myself and, obviously, my firm. I explained to him that I did have, albeit not recently, some historical significant criminal experience.”
Initially, Mackechnie acted on behalf of only Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who was of course acquitted and has since returned to Tripoli. But at the outset this outcome could not easily have been foreseen.
“I was aware, and most people were aware, that the Lockerbie case was going to be gargantuan in scope. The big issue at the beginning was – on the one hand – the clients’ understandable desire to be free as soon as possible – they had surrendered themselves for trial in Holland; of course they were maintaining absolute innocence – and their desire was to have the trial started and completed as quickly as possible.
“On the other hand, at the very beginning neither Alistair Duff nor I had very much of an idea what the Crown case against the two men was supposed to be. So the big struggle in the early weeks and months was in gaining some understanding of what the case against the two men was to be. And we had some real difficulties in establishing the totality of the case. I am referring to the piecemeal production to us of supposedly relevant Crown productions, which came to us in vast boxes and quite often they were unintelligible and unconnected, and it was quite difficult to gauge just how much work had to be done in a space of time.”
Obvious additional complications resulted from seemingly straightforward tasks, such as obtaining statements from witnesses who were spread across 22 countries. In all, almost 1,300 precognitions were taken, from Scotland to as far away as Japan. Circumstances that are unlikely to ever be repeated. Nelson Mandela doesn’t get involved in too many Scottish murder trials.
“In a way, it was such an exciting experience, such a daunting experience, and one just simply had to rise to the challenge, and I found that the staff felt the same way. There was an excitement in everything we did.
“There was no doubt in my mind from early on that, in a sense, all of the participants in this unique Scottish trial were wanting to make sure that this – inevitably showpiece – trial was a success and we would all co-operate as far as possible in the roles together to achieve a well managed and well conducted procedure.”
However, notwithstanding the goodwill and best intentions of those involved, the verdict, when announced, was greeted with incredulity by those who had heard the evidence.
On a simple reading of the evidence presented, the verdicts are, in the opinion of many, simply not sustainable. The Lords themselves were aware of the incongruity of much of the evidence, and referred to this in their judgment.
“We are aware that in relation to certain aspects of the case there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. We are also aware that there is a danger that, by selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified. However, having considered the whole evidence in the case, including the uncertainties and qualifications, and the submissions of Counsel, we are satisfied that the evidence ... does fit together to form a real and convincing pattern. There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused.” [p.89]
The Not Proven verdict was, of course, available to their Lordships, although it would be improper to speculate why this was not used, given the qualifications in the judgment. But even among lay observers, the disparity in the verdicts for both accused raised eyebrows. Those more familiar with the evidence before the court, including Mackechnie, took a stronger view. “All I will say is that, at the end of all of the evidence in the trial, I was in my mind satisfied that, reading things as objectively as I could, as a matter of law both of the accused should most definitely have been acquitted, and the verdicts should have been Not Guilty. In the case of Mr Megrahi, I did not believe there was sufficient evidence in law to convict him.”
Mackechnie believes that, as agent for the defence, he and his team were at a distinct disadvantage in terms of availability of resources and leverage. Obtaining statements and evidence proved to be a difficulty, unsurprisingly perhaps, given the scale of the case. “The Crown had the Dept of Justice of the USA at their beck and call, and all the weight of the UK and the USA diplomatically. For example, Mohammad Abu Talb, a notable incriminee in this case, declined even to see anyone from the defence at any stage. Yet, Abu Talb travels by special plane, armed guards, the lot, and gives his evidence over a number of days. Interesting. He also provided evidence and gave a number of statements at great length to Crown representatives. So a clear disadvantage was in operation. Perhaps inevitably. I think the job was actually impossible.” Those not familiar with this aspect of the case should know that a special defence of incrimination was lodged by the two accused, naming Mr Talb. Considering the extensive amount of information published linking Palestinian militants sponsored by Iran and Syria to the bombing, and indeed the published views of Robert Baer of the CIA - little wonder the verdicts remain the subject of contentious public debate.
For Mackechnie, the case could be seen as a prime example of being careful what you wish for, as the challenges in acting for Mr Megrahi continue to play themselves out: “As a matter of experience, this trial was always going to be very different from the normal Scottish high court murder trial, and many attempts to make it as fair as possible I think, in practice, failed.” The exclusion of the option to have a jury trial was also a source of frustration to Mackechnie and, indeed, to both accused. “In all reality, practically, there was no choice for these men and no choice for the lawyers. This was the way it was going to be. The idea was to have the trial over and done with as quickly as possible in the belief that these two men were innocent and would return home. Many, many times, prior to the surrender of the Libyans, it was suggested that jury trial was absolutely essential and there was no question of the rules being changed to allow trial without a jury. In the event, those long-stated principles were totally ignored. I have found nothing so far that indicates that either of them ever abandoned their right to a jury trial.”
The global significance of the events of 21 December 1988, and the worldwide significance of the verdict, placed all connected with the trial in a unique position and it could fairly be argued that there has never been a Scottish case that has had the eyes of the world upon it to such a degree. Whether this has been of benefit to the case and in the interests of justice is a wider question, and remains a matter of continuing significance. As the case still rests with the SCCRC, the last act in these events remains to be played out. “The whole truth of Lockerbie may never emerge, but I will have no difficulty, when the time is right, in supporting the call made many times for a full and frank inquiry into the whole circumstances, as wider issues than guilt or innocence are involved.”
Eddie MacKechnie has a good deal more to say about his client and his case, which will all have to wait until the SCCRC has considered the position. Given the incongruity of the verdict, and the exceptionally broad historic, current and ongoing geopolitical background to the case, together with its ramifications and consequences for relations between the Arab world and the West, to say the world is watching would be something of an understatement. For the long-term credibility of Scots law, and in the interests of serving justice in this particular case, it can be hoped that the final outcome will consider only the facts at hand and the events as they took place. To serve a wider political purpose would be to do a disservice, on one hand, to our profession and, more importantly, to those who have died.